Whether you were being metaphorical or literal, you're still wrong and hyperbolic to refer to Judith's positions as "public rape" of Muller's work, especially since she's not even a denier.

You're the problem with AWG debate...you read a few blogs and some energy lobby garbage and you think you see all the chinks in the armor of AWG theory. Wrong.

I have it bookmarked. How else would I know you were full of ****? I've been following this debate for over twenty years, knucklehead. A quick review of the thread will show you I've been following Muller's work for years too.

So it's fine for you to call Judith's comments "public rape", but don't even cite the "sources" because you know it makes your comment look stupid?

No thanks, not playing.

It's sad someone who claims to support science keeps hounding on the non-issue of Climagegate.

Neither are you, yet here you are in the bully pulpit, misrepresenting the work of others.

You should read more of Judith's blog...at least then I could take you seriously when you comment about her.

You're too lazy to read the sources in the climategate affair so your opinion has no value.

Do you REALLY believe the "average temperature of the entire world" matters at all compared to devastating local effects of AWG which are already being identified around the world (by actual scientists)???

I believe that average global temperature absolutely is the parameter that matters when you're trying to evaluate a hypothesis which claims that rising atmospheric CO2 will lead to rising global average temperatures.

Have you abandoned this hypothesis ? Yes or no ?

Before you claim I posted no sources, you need to first learn to read, and then re-read the Nature article I posted. Then attempt to dissect the science there, instead of my humble posts. No, Nature is not "pop science", jerkoff.

I read it before you posted it. I have already refuted it's conclusions by pointing you at the NSIDC graph of antarctic ice cover for the last 4 decades. Up, and to the right.

I think it's best if you focus on the simple things, to begin with.

Oh wait I forgot you don't care about scientists unless they are in the public eye or openly disagreeing with mainstream AWG models and so become easy targets for hit pieces, like the ones I'm sure you are immersed in.

You don't care about the thousands of scientists who are beyond convinced, nor do you care about Nature article I posted which shows why "Climagegate" emails are such a poor place to spend your time.

LOL And to think YOU accused ME of "not keeping up with relevant literature" but you think Climategate is still relevant.

Turkey. Thanksgiving is over.

So that's a 'no, I still haven't bothered looking at the primary sources I keep huffing about being irrelevant', then.

While being far from perfect, I am fine with being hyperbole in this case as to the lopsidedness of where the scientific consensus is.

Consensus is irrelevant. Science is not a democracy. It rests on testable hypotheses. I doesn't matter how many scientists tell you something, if what they predict simply doesn't happen, then there is a problem with the theory they are using to make the prediction.

You're too lazy to read the sources in the climategate affair so your opinion has no value.

OK then no more opinions, just facts.

FACT: There have been eight independent investigations clearing the scientists in "Climategate", which is why clinging to it as a supporting argument is doomed to fail.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...ly-clears.html

This one refused to investigate any of the scientific claims. You've failed to keep up again, and this time you tried to bluff fake knowledge about the workings of my own government. This last inquiry lasted a single day and didn't involve actual examination of the emails.

The first inquiry was quickly convened after it was conclusively shown that Muir Russell's inquiry was unsatisfactory because Muir Russell had multiple financial ties to the green-energy industry and MPs found numerous errors of fact in his report after it was delivered.

Here is the reply where Oxburgh admits that his International Science Assessment panel did not have actualy study of the science within it's remit

Dear Dr Mcintyre,
Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.
Yours sincerly,
Ron Oxburgh

The report says it did not find evidence of data manipulation on the same fucking page it admits it did not re-examine any of the data referenced in the climategate emails. It then goes on to say that they are reviewing their funding of UEA. Lol.

I believe that average global temperature absolutely is the parameter that matters when you're trying to evaluate a hypothesis which claims that rising atmospheric CO2 will lead to rising global average temperatures.

Then you are ridiculous and part of the problem. You make the debate ridiculous just like the deniers.

What debate?

He is claiming the very concept behind greenhouse gasses is false despite the fact that we have a clear understanding of how they work.

He could go and get a bottle of CO2 fill an air tight but clear vessel. Put it out in the sun for the day. Come back the next day and take a temperature reading of the ambient air and the air inside the vessel and notice that the air in the vessel is a bit warmer.